Utopia Talk / Politics / Meta and Amazon ending DEI programs

Rugian Member	Sat Jan 11 09:21:31 Meta on Friday told employees that its plans to end a number of internal programs designed to increase the company’s hiring of diverse candidates, the latest dramatic change ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s second White House term. Janelle Gale, Meta’s vice president of people, made the announcement on the company’s Workplace internal communications forum. Among the changes, Meta is ending the company’s “Diverse Slate Approach” of considering qualified candidates from underrepresented groups for its open roles. The company is also putting an end to its diversity supplier program and its equity and inclusion training programs. Gale also announced the disbanding of the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, team, and she said that Meta Chief Diversity Officer Maxine Williams will move into a new role focused on accessibility and engagement. http://www...s-end-of-its-dei-programs.html
Rugian Member	Sat Jan 11 09:23:33 Amazon said it is halting some of its diversity and inclusion initiatives, joining a growing list of major corporations that have made similar moves in the face of increasing public and legal scrutiny. In a Dec. 16 internal note to staffers that was obtained by CNBC, Candi Castleberry, Amazon’s VP of inclusive experiences and technology, said the company was in the process of “winding down outdated programs and materials” as part of a broader review of hundreds of initiatives. “Rather than have individual groups build programs, we are focusing on programs with proven outcomes — and we also aim to foster a more truly inclusive culture,” Castleberry wrote in the note, which was first reported by Bloomberg. Castleberry’s memo doesn’t say which programs the company is dropping as a result of its review. The company typically releases annual data on the racial and gender makeup of its workforce, and it also operates black, LGBTQ+, indigenous and veteran employee resource groups, among others. In 2020, Amazon set a goal of doubling the number of black employees in vice president and director roles. It announced the same goal in 2021 and also pledged to hire 30% more black employees for product manager, engineer and other corporate roles. Other companies, including McDonald’s, Walmart and Ford, have also made changes to their DEI initiatives in recent months. Rising conservative backlash and the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action in 2023 spurred many corporations to alter or discontinue their DEI programs. http://www...amazon-halt-dei-programs-.html
Rugian Member	Sat Jan 11 09:23:54 Sanity is finally creeping back into this country. Thank God Trump won.
Average Ameriacn Member	Sat Jan 11 10:07:07 MAGA! http://www...g-post-election-shakeup-report Along with removing transgender and nonbinary customization themes on its Messenger app and changing its "Hateful Conduct" policy to allow criticism of gender identity, the company took an active role in changing the corporate culture at the office, according to The Times. At "Meta’s offices in Silicon Valley, Texas and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men’s bathrooms, which the company had provided for nonbinary and transgender employees who use the men’s room and who may have required sanitary pads, two employees said," The Times reported.
obaminated Member	Sat Jan 11 10:07:12 Wtb, dukhat, tw, seb, etc take note.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Jan 11 11:11:38 i've never once advocated for DEI... if i mentioned it ever at all, it was only commenting on your sides insane obsession & overreaction to it (such as instantly blaming DEI anytime a woman, black, or gay person is involved in a story)
Rugian Member	Sat Jan 11 11:29:22 Yeah, imagine having a problem with policies that are explicitly racist, in many cases completely locking out white men from opportunities for hiring or promotion due to their race and gender... ...why would anyone be upset with that?
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 11:43:15 Ruggy So you are actually pro DEI. There needs to be rules that keep companies from making their own hiring rules. Only difference is your choice of the oppressed out group that needs help.
Rugian Member	Sat Jan 11 11:45:27 ^ just displayed a shocking ignorance about DEI
Rugian Member	Sat Jan 11 11:49:21 jergul It has been a federal crime to discriminate in your hiring practices on the basis of race or sex for six decades now. Title VII passed in 1964. DEI implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, calls for a violation of substance and spirit of Title VII. Equality vs. equity. Despite the similarity in names, these two concepts are the polar opposites of one another. I suggest you read up on them before you respond in this thread again.
Rugian Member	Sat Jan 11 11:50:04 Title VII being a push for equality. DEI being a push for equity.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 13:25:39 Ruggy I understand the difference. Title vii is enforcible, so DEI does not violate the ammendment as there is recourse. I am merely pointing out that you think private companies should be limited in their hiring practices to ensure that your oppressed outgroup gets the help it needs. Or is that wrong? Do you think private companies should abide by title vii, but otherwise hire whoever they like?
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 13:29:34 Government hires and promotions follow a similar logic of course. Private just for simplicity.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jan 11 13:41:25 Excellent.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jan 11 14:15:35 “ I am merely pointing out that you think private companies should be limited in their hiring practices to ensure that your oppressed outgroup gets the help it needs.” He is celebrating that two major companies have returnes to “sanity” in their hiring practices. You had to try really hard to not get that.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 14:41:21 Nimi Cutie, sadly, Ruggy contradicts you with a direct statement in this thread. He is concerned that his marginalized outgroup was losing opportunities <3. He can correct me if he does not think private companies should be limited in their hiring and promotion practices to ensure that his oppressed outgroup gets the help it needs.
Rugian Member	Sat Jan 11 14:45:22 jergul You really don't get it, do you.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 14:52:27 I get that you have felt victimized for a while. It is a right wing trait that. Quite telling that you are unwilling to answer a direct question. Easy enough to do. I would run with. "I think private companies should be wise enough to make that choice, but it is not a government affair outside of title vvi and its enforcement mechanisms". You cant commit to even that?
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 14:53:09 vii*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jan 11 16:07:15 Jergul There is no contradiction. He can still celebrate that, whatever that is. The gist if it seems to be that you are triggered that Rugian has an opinion on the hiring practices of Amazon, specifically that he approves of them, when he didn’t earlier. Should individuals be able to have opinions about the hiring practices of companies?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jan 11 16:10:11 “Wanting to limit” seems to to a lot of ueavy lifting here, to distort “celebrating a change”. I guess my point is that you want to limit private individuals in what thought they may have.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jan 11 16:15:53 I mean I guess in a way having any opinion contrary to anyone elses “limits them”. Yea, in the world of the safe spaces where words are violence and silence is genocide, Rugian wants to limit corporate hiring practices.
jergul large member	Sat Jan 11 17:24:04 Cutie, I am not saying there is a contradiction. I find his celebratory mood endearing, but not interesting beyond that. The point I raised is however interesting to explore. And au contraire. I thrive on the variety of human thought and am grateful to everyon sharing here. I truly love pointing out contradictions and ironies that emerge in anachistic, undiscipline and discoherent emotional expressions in particular <3.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jan 11 18:06:13 Guys, jergfaggot is just "pretending" to be retarded. He's been "pretending" for decades now.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 12 02:42:56 Jergul It’s fine that you find it interesting, but it is no more contradictory, undisciplined, emotional etc. than your own posts in response.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 12 02:58:52 It strikes me that Jergul is unaware that he is operating on a set of assumptions/values. Furthermore he is unable to figure out when the difference is due to values as opposed to logical incoherence or fallacy. Like, this thread is basically summed up in “I strongly disagree with what company X is doing, but they are free to do it.” And then Jergul celebrates victory because Rugian does not feel like dealing with his retardation. Classic.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 05:15:41 Nimi Thats sweet, cutie. You do you <3.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 06:04:23 CC, its not my fault that victimization is the cornerstone of your musings. It is part of parcel of golden age thinking (there was a golden age, but we have been under assault since then and all is soon lost unless someone can stop it).
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 06:04:46 part and parcel rather*
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 12 06:52:06 I mean, what's the point in bothering to deal with someone this absolutely uninformed about the topic? He may as well be talking about the effect that Jupiter's gravity has on discrimination in the workplace. He'd be no further off than he is now.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 07:06:59 Ruggy What an odd take. I am thinking your disagree on title vii being enforcable, so DEI measures to you are illegal, despite there being recourse for companies in violation of title vii as many rulings have shown. To me, DEI measures are within the scope of title vii unless proven otherwise. As is traditional in western judicial systems (there are exceptions in cases were regulation or law are not supported by enforceable measures). I am fine with you being happy. It does matter that Trump won the election. However, companies changing the optics of what they do does not change the core of what companies are. Changing fundamental hiring and promotion practices require regulation by government. So I am asking you again. Do you think companies should be required by law to end DEI practices? Alternatively, do you trust companies to be wise enough to do that on their own accord, but that further regulation is not required by government?
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 07:13:43 It still boils down to you thinking your oppressed outgroup is being victimized. I only want to clarify if you think further regulation is required, or is that government overreach into the private sphere? Can you commit to what Nimi and I have offered earlier: "I strongly disagree with companies doing X, but I will defend until death their right to do so" (we may as well paraphrase Voltaire correctly).
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 12 07:33:59 I don't know why you're insisting on taking this thread in this direction, but just for the record: - In instances where DEI leads to discriminatory hiring practices or working environments in contradiction of the law, then yes the law should be enforced. Duh - In instances where DEI merely leads companies to push woke propaganda in their employees or in the marketplace, that is legal but worthy of condemnation, and pressure should be placed on those companies by the public to discontinue those practices It's not about white men specifically bro. DEI represents a backwards step in national efforts to eliminate societal discrimination by viewing people through the prism of identity. It is an explicit rejection of the idea that everyone should be treated equally in favor of a mentality that you should absolutely judge someone by their skin color or genitalia. In terms of how it categorizes people, DEI is basically 1910s-style segregationism with mirrored oppressor/oppressed classes. Calling me emotional for opposing it just exposes how categorically not plugged in to American culuture you are.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 07:59:48 Ruggy Identity politics is at its core emotional, so, well, yes, I find you quite emotional at times. But that is fine. Emotions are usually good to have. I get what you are saying. In a perfect world we would not need to categorize people to ensure balanced representation within a company. Indeed, I rather suspect some of the rollbacks we have seen are more a function of institutionalized change. Critical mass achieved and corporate practices adapted. Equal representation automised without further need for special measures. Perhaps it is not about white men specifically for you Ruggy and I congratulate you on being blind to colour, gender and culture. But for many, the driver here is white men being deprived of jobs they so richly deserve just because some quota needs to be met. So, yes. About the oppression of white men. Which I also get. Wage stagnation since the 1970s with ever increasing living expenses. Most everyone is being oppressed. Thing is, you are missing who is oppressing you. Missing that part is truly being plugged into your culture. Check out the Gini index for details. Let it be said. The oppression is real, is devastating (how many of you have kids for example), and will fundamentally change society. But very OT, because it has nothing to do with DEI. It has to do with income and wealth division in your society.
Rugian Member	Sun Jan 12 08:24:07 So stupid. I had to tap out after your first sentence. I'm not engaging in identity politics.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 08:40:34 Ruggy Paragraphs traditionally separate thoughts. Its fine that you think you are not embroiled in identity politics. Sad that I lost you with the rest though. I kind of nailed it.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 08:45:20 I have no idea how this is going to end. The bottom quintile can have kid because of nihilism (who gives a fuck), or by playing the odds (it will work out for some of them surely), The upper quintile can because they can afford it. And everyone else has to choose between a middle class lifestyle or having offspring as there is no margin for child raising. A very interesting social experiment.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 08:46:54 *With the caveat of multigenerational households. Sticking together generationally can compensate a lot for individual lack of income and wealth.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jan 12 14:24:10 [Rugian]: "In instances where DEI merely leads companies to push woke propaganda in their employees or in the marketplace, that is legal but worthy of condemnation, and pressure should be placed on those companies by the public to discontinue those practices" It's actually not legal if done under the umbrella of ESG, which is largely the case, since ESG/"sustainability" is an anti-competitive pyramid scheme and protection racket which violates DoL and SEC rules. This illegality is likely going to be addressed now that Harris has lost (they have 8 days). This is what faggots such as jergtard and tumbleshitstain pretend not to understand or maliciously refrain from understanding (and why I repeatedly have asked tumbleshitstain if he's heard about ESG yet). These leftists lie and project, and the simple summation of ESG-DEI is that when leftists talk about the West being "systematically racist", they are lying, but also projecting by telling us what their actual plan is: ESG-DEI *creates* a systemically racist anti-White genocidal policy using the leverage of 14+ trillion dollars in assets under management.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 15:23:03 CC Genocide is a strong term, but the argument can be made. Non-hispanic whites are down to 1.5 children per woman. Far below replacement. Currently, more non-hispanic white people are dying than being born in the US. The problem as I see it kind of dovetails with "wealth under management". Or a wealth and income concentration issue most of all. In simple terms, most white people cannot afford children and a decent lifestyle. They also lack access to the multi generational household for cultural reasons. It will get worse before it gets better. For non-hispanic whites as a group retain one final reserve: Intergenerational wealth transfers as the boomers die off. After that? Well...and interesting social experiment as I said. Or you could do something about wealth and income inequality. Divide productivity gains in better ways.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: